US compounding rules and how they changed posts 61–69

Prior authorisation criteria are usually published by the payer and reading them before the appointment changes the outcome more than anything else does.

One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.

On post #59 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Emotional language in an appeal does not help, however justified it is. The reviewer is checking criteria and the job is to make them checkable.

Picking up post #63: that is the part I would want checked first.

The public assessment documents published at approval are free, detailed and largely unread here.

Where I part company with post #63, and it is a narrow parting.

Formulary position changes on a schedule that is published in advance, which means a decision made now may be answering last year's formulary.

Private insurance gaps: some people have private insurance but medication is not covered. Manufacturer assistance programmes are the main resource for cost reduction.

Not a strong opinion, just a consistent one.

Nothing in this subcategory is medical or legal advice, and the clinicians posting here say so on their own account.

The right answer here may simply be that it has not been measured.

Adding the measurement that post #67 says would settle it.

Where a compounding pathway existed and closed, posts describing it stay in the archive and should be read with their date attached.